Javadogs,I've staged the final JDO 2.0 release on the apache server.Please test this release. The dependencies have been updated to reflect JDO release 2.0 and JPOX release 1.1.0. If you're testing JPOX, refer below for the maven staging area. If you're testing TCK, you will have to jigger your dep
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-64?page=all ]
Craig Russell updated JDO-64:
-
Fix Version: (was: JDO 2 final)
Assign To: (was: Martin Zaun)
> Enhancer test cases must be adapted to JDO2.
>
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-273?page=all ]
Craig Russell resolved JDO-273:
---
Resolution: Fixed
> Create tests for sections 5.5.8 & 5.5.9, detachment lifecycle
> -
>
> K
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-349?page=all ]
Craig Russell resolved JDO-349:
---
Resolution: Fixed
Assign To: Michael Bouschen
> Javadoc warnings should be fixed
>
>
> Key: JDO-349
> UR
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-308?page=all ]
Craig Russell updated JDO-308:
--
Fix Version: (was: JDO 2 final)
Removing the strategy attribute has proved to be an issue with the TCK. The TCK
will be released with the attribute strategy="iden
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-285?page=all ]
Craig Russell updated JDO-285:
--
Fix Version: (was: JDO 2 final)
We should take a look at this for a maintenance release.
> Fix list of teardown classes in company model reader.
> ---
Here are comments on the latest spreadsheet.
12.6.8-28 not testable with the RI
12.6.8-29 should be removed. There is no longer such a parameter.
12.5.6-17 tested with
org.apache.jdo.tck.api.persistencemanager.getobject.GetObjectsById
Otherwise, looks good.
Craig
On Mar 29, 2006, at 12:54
Done. -- Michelle
Craig L Russell wrote:
Yes, please check in the worksheet as you have it.
Craig
On Mar 29, 2006, at 11:43 AM, Michelle Caisse wrote:
Craig L Russell wrote:
What I'd recommend is that
- the StateTransition tests only refer to A5.9.1..190, which denotes
the global state
Yes, please resolve the JIRA issue.
Craig
On Mar 29, 2006, at 12:48 PM, Michael Bouschen wrote:
Hi Craig,
Hi Michael,
Go ahead and check in. Just watch out because I've checked in some
of the changes. :(
done. Should I resolve the JIRA issue?
Regards Michael
Craig
On Mar 29, 2006, at
Hi Craig,
Hi Michael,
Go ahead and check in. Just watch out because I've checked in some of
the changes. :(
done. Should I resolve the JIRA issue?
Regards Michael
Craig
On Mar 29, 2006, at 11:54 AM, Michael Bouschen wrote:
Hi Craig,
attached you find a patch fixing all the javadoc warni
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-355?page=all ]
Michael Bouschen resolved JDO-355:
--
Resolution: Fixed
Assign To: Michael Bouschen (was: Michael Watzek)
I checked in the patch.
Sende
tck20\src\orm\applicationidentity\org\a
Yes, please check in the worksheet as you have it.
Craig
On Mar 29, 2006, at 11:43 AM, Michelle Caisse wrote:
Craig L Russell wrote:
What I'd recommend is that
- the StateTransition tests only refer to A5.9.1..190, which denotes
the global state transition table in the spec and that
- we m
Hi Michael,
Go ahead and check in. Just watch out because I've checked in some of
the changes. :(
Craig
On Mar 29, 2006, at 11:54 AM, Michael Bouschen wrote:
Hi Craig,
attached you find a patch fixing all the javadoc warnings described
in JDO-349. I tried to attach the patch to the JIRA
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-64?page=comments#action_12372309
]
Craig Russell commented on JDO-64:
--
This test verifies binary compatibility of enhanced classes. Since JDO 2.0 does
not require binary compatibility, I propose to defer this to a
Craig L Russell wrote:
What I'd recommend is that
- the StateTransition tests only refer to A5.9.1..190, which denotes
the global state transition table in the spec and that
- we mark all other state-transition related assertions in the
lifecycle tab of the spreadsheets as duplicates of A5.9
Martin Zaun wrote:
Michelle, Craig,
Michelle Caisse wrote:
I have JDO-293, which is dependent on JDO-273 finishing touches.
There's also JDO-64 that is still open. And JDO-349.
-- Michelle
I currently cannot lookup JDO-293 (apache server seems to be down),
so, I'm not sure about your d
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-349?page=comments#action_12372303 ]
Craig Russell commented on JDO-349:
---
[javadoc]
C:\svn0\jdo\trunk\tck20\src\java\org\apache\jdo\tck\api\persistencemanagerfactory\GetPMFByFile.java:77:
warning - Tag @see: re
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-349?page=all ]
Michael Bouschen updated JDO-349:
-
Attachment: JDO-349.patch
The attached patch (JDO-349-patch) fixes the javadoc warnings. Please have a
look.
> Javadoc warnings should be fixed
>
Hi Craig,
attached you find a patch fixing all the javadoc warnings described in
JDO-349. I tried to attach the patch to the JIRA issue, but I still have
problems accessing JIRA. You find the patch attached below. Please have
a look.
Regards Michael
--
Michael Bouschen[EMAIL
On Mar 29, 2006, at 10:50 AM, Martin Zaun wrote:
Michelle, Craig,
Michelle Caisse wrote:
I have JDO-293, which is dependent on JDO-273 finishing touches.
There's also JDO-64 that is still open. And JDO-349.
-- Michelle
I'm going to address all of the issues currently annotated as "fix
Michelle, Craig,
Michelle Caisse wrote:
I have JDO-293, which is dependent on JDO-273 finishing touches.
There's also JDO-64 that is still open. And JDO-349.
-- Michelle
I currently cannot lookup JDO-293 (apache server seems to be down),
so, I'm not sure about your dependency, but I don't
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-355?page=all ]
Michael Bouschen updated JDO-355:
-
Attachment: JDO-355.patch
The attached patch (JDO-355.patch) removes PCRect from the .sql files and
PCPoint2, PCRect, and PrimitiveTypes from .orm files for bot
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-355?page=comments#action_12372279 ]
Craig Russell commented on JDO-355:
---
When the tests were written, I think we didn't know exactly what we were going
to test, and made extra classes persistent in order to have
Remove extra tables/classes in the sql and orm for mappings 5,6, and 7.
---
Key: JDO-355
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-355
Project: JDO
Type: Improvement
Components: tck20
Ver
Hi Michael,
Probably a different JIRA issue should track this.
Thanks,
Craig
On Mar 29, 2006, at 8:21 AM, Craig Russell (JIRA) wrote:
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-354?
page=comments#action_12372278 ]
Craig Russell commented on JDO-354:
---
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-354?page=comments#action_12372278 ]
Craig Russell commented on JDO-354:
---
When the tests were written, I think we didn't know exactly what we were going
to test, and made extra classes persistent in order to have
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-354?page=comments#action_12372236 ]
Michael Watzek commented on JDO-354:
I noticed that there is a little mismatch between test case MakePersistent, the
.sql files, and the .orm files for mappings 5, 6, 7 wrt.
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-347?page=comments#action_12372223 ]
Andy Jefferson commented on JDO-347:
No problem Martin. It should all be built into the current JPOX nightly build
and passes for me with latest SVN TCK
> JPOX fails some li
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-347?page=comments#action_12372221 ]
Martin Zaun commented on JDO-347:
-
Sorry if that case has caused additional work. JDO-273 had a comment that this
case
(serialize with active tx) needs review, but we wanted to g
29 matches
Mail list logo
